Amtrak Replaces Electric Train Fleet With More Efficient Siemens Models For Northeast Corridor

WASHINGTON — Amtrak is spending $466 million to replace 70 electric locomotives with new ones from German manufacturer Siemens, the president of the nation's intercity passenger railroad said Thursday.

The new locomotives will replace those in use on Amtrak's Northeast Regional route between Boston and Washington and Keystone route in Pennsylvania that are between 20 and 30 years old and have an average of 3.5 million miles each, Joseph Boardman told The Associated Press in an interview.

Siemens will build the locomotives at its plant in Sacramento, Calif., creating about 250 jobs, Amtrak officials said. Some work will also take place a Siemens plants in Norwood, Ohio, and Alpharetta, Ga.

The first delivery of new trains is scheduled for February 2013, Boardman said. The purchase will replace Amtrak's entire fleet of electric trains with the exception of Acela service locomotives. Acela is Amtrak – and the nation's – only high-speed passenger train service.

The new locomotives will be capable of operating at speeds up to 135 mph, but Amtrak doesn't plan to operate them at more than 125 mph, said Steve Kulm, a spokesman for the railroad.

The purchase is part of an Amtrak plan unveiled last February to replace and expand its entire fleet over the next 30 years. The company's first step in the plan, announced in July, was to spend $298 million to purchase 130 passenger cars.

"We need to upgrade the northeast corridor for the benefit of the businesses in the Northeast," Boardman said. "We have the financial capital of the world, we have one of the major medical corridors, educational institutions, and even fashion industry that are depending upon a reliable system of intercity transportation."

Amtrak carried 28.7 million passengers – a new ridership record – in the 12 months ending on Sept. 30. That was up 5.7 percent over the previous year.

The growth was largely due to services demanded in the Northeast, Boardman said.

"These locomotives will be built in America using renewable energy and provide cleaner, more efficient movement of people on the most heavily traveled rail route in the country," said Daryl Dulaney, president and CEO, Siemens Industry, Inc.

Six of the older locomotives will be retained for possible service expansions.

Comments

[MIKEinNYC]

09:32 PM on 10/31/2010

People are asking about what happened to our domestic railroad equipment industry.

Please notice that the articles states they will be replacing stuff that's 20-30 years old. In other words no stuff has been made or ordered in the last 20-30 years. How is a domestic railroad equipment industry supposed to survive with no business for 20-30 years?

[harriettubman]

09:00 PM on 10/31/2010

For the life of me I can't think of why the U.S. stopped working on high speed transporation. Were the current trains just for cargo?

Here are new job opportunities AND better transportation ideas:
1) Revamping and adding a rail system in this country
2) Going solar. The market is there.
3) Wind - Wind mills
4) Hydro - Water has worked for energy in many countries

[ChangeurMind]

03:22 PM on 10/31/2010

The USA has trains?

[Mortifyd]

03:38 PM on 10/31/2010

Had them for a long time. Nice way to see the US too, just ask Michael Palin.

[ChangeurMind]

03:20 PM on 10/31/2010

"Amtrak doesn't plan to operate them at more than 125 mph, said Steve Kulm, a spokesman for the railroad." What a joke. LOL. USA how 20th Century of you. Maybe by 2050 the US will have a train that goes 140 miles an hour. How scary!

[bryanzth]

12:28 AM on 10/31/2010

Hm. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and French high speed rail of 10 years ago will still blow the doors off of these ones being made right now. Made in USA, ok ok, already. But why can't we build something that doesn't look like a 1970s Stereo Amplifier?

BZ.

[harriettubman]

09:02 PM on 10/31/2010

Europe has a great system too. Knowing the U.S. it's probabally something political why they haven't done it here yet. The GOP doesn't want it unless they say "YES". While Obama is in office the answer is NO, NO, NO.

[brklynivn]

03:56 PM on 10/30/2010

Wouldn't it have been nice if we had manufacturers of these locomotives here in the US, like we used to have? But then we'd have to concentrate on mathematics and science, instead of debating whether the earth is 6,000 or 6 billion years old.

[2037Prob]

01:22 PM on 10/30/2010

I noticed the huge price tag for replacement engines. I saw nothing about dramtic increases in efficiencies listed. The only thing touted was 250 jobs at 446 million dollars in cost. This is the definition of efficiency under the Obama regime.

[Mortifyd]

01:33 AM on 10/31/2010

So better to let the old train engines with 3.5 million or more miles on them in one of the most profitable sections of their business finally go and potentially kill people rather than upgrade, produce 250 jobs in 3 US states and get the additional benefit of millions more track miles of service with new engines on old cars? You really should try *thinking* about things for a change.

[ChangeurMind]

03:21 PM on 10/31/2010

No. Better to get it right the 1st time. This is Obama's weakness. All is half measures. Nothing impressive. ALL this money spent for "average."

[eric14]

12:46 PM on 10/30/2010

Amtrak replaces...
--------
Use of present simple in headline usually suggests action is being or has been completed. EG
''US declares war on rugs.''

We start to read and encounter present continuous: is spending -- Our hearts sink.... and then
the truth ''will replace'' FUTURE SIMPLE blah blah 2013.

So, given the time-mangling way of presenting a story, we should expect this to be recycled every time there is, whaddya call it, a milestone passed. Does it ever occur to people who teach journalism and who write journalism that this way of presenting events is totally crass?

[SangZe]

10:02 AM on 10/30/2010

Amtrak wouldn't know a train if it ran it over. Lousy trains, lousy service, uncaring personnel.

[cwkimbro]

05:14 PM on 10/29/2010

I wish the article explained about efficiency savings, since the title was about that. The article seemed to explain a standard changing out an old fleet.
dbrett-
Amtrak is a government corporation made to keep rail passenger service afloat, even when it's unprofitable. It isn't that it is near bankruptcy, but it constantly requires government subsidies and there is a constant battle over how much it should be subsidized.

However, I want to point out one major detail that gets lost in discussion. There are a few corridors that operate profitably. The Northeast corridor is one of them (in fact the major one). That corridor makes money, therefore more money is spent on operating and upgrading the corridor.

Most of the actual subsidies are targeted at keeping rural and cross-country routes operating, even when they don't produce enough revenue. So, yes Amtrak as a whole doesn't turn a profit, but the northeast corridor does.

I just wanted to point that out, so if anyone gets in a to subsidize or not to subsidize debate (which is completely warranted) that it doesn't need to become a Amtrak or anti-Amtrak debate, but more so a ... what should Amtrak be debate?

On another note... we pollute generating electricity for electric rail. Electric rail just helps us cut point-source pollution to de-smog cities and use rail tunnels more often. We still need to work on how to generate electricity in our nation.

[JScott]

11:22 PM on 10/29/2010

Ok I'll bite.....but every I mean every kind of transportation gets a subsidy of some kind and not just in this country either. There would be a s**tload of whining if any form of transportation was strictly at the mercy of the capitalist free market, and of course conservative libertarian free marketers would be the biggest whiners of all Civilized society in some way subsidizes transportation because there are other larger societal and civic goals that are to be achieved.

[cwkimbro]

04:58 AM on 10/30/2010

I wasn't really taking a stance, but re-phrasing the issue. I certainly never argued that transportation is 'strictly at the mercy of free-market capitalism."

I agree with your general argument. I'm from Atlanta and find myself arguing for transit that way. Afterall, we subsidize freeways heavily.

But, one thing gets lost sometimes: cost-benefit analysis.

We need to subsidize transportation. It shapes our country and lets us work effectively. However, we need to compare costs to effectiveness. Amtrak is a great example, since it has corridors that operate more effectively than others. Some are more costly than others and some offer more benefit than others.

This isn't to say a corridor should have to pay it's operational costs, but some corridors offer extremely limited service to very few people and doesn't offer much economic benefit. If we aren't afraid to take money away from something that has a high cost-benefit value, then we can put the money into another project/corridor that will work for us better.

After deciding how much it is worth paying for something, we need to choose the best and most effective way to spend it.

My fear is people, especially those of us who are more progressive, are afraid to take money away from something, to provide it to another thing that offers more value.

I guess to most people it has to be anti-this or pro-that, but at the end of the day its never that simple :)

[free fall]

08:30 AM on 10/30/2010

Rail is very efficient and clean. Subsidies and keeping prices low keeps ridership up. Enticing riders to take trains instead of cars and planes is a major win for the environment and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

[harriettubman]

09:04 PM on 10/31/2010

Hmmm...perhaps the airlines have something to do with this. An Amtrak ticket is likely to be more expensive than a plane ticket!

[dbrett480]

04:13 PM on 10/29/2010

I thought Amtrak was near bankruptcy.

[harriettubman]

09:03 PM on 10/31/2010

They have poor leadership just like the postal system.

[Metamofoosis]

03:05 PM on 10/29/2010

An electric locomotive can be in service for 30 years or more, Amazing! All that time not polluting. And sure they can still be sold and used in another city here or abroad, some place eager to have nonpolluting trains.